Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Probably yes but for many, their golden years situation was predictable at 30 if they had just given it some thought.
I agree that it is important that young people give thought to their own retirement. Now, let me take you back to a time about 75 years ago. Back than, average life expectancies were considerably lower than they are today. Back than social security was being debated in Congress, it hadn't become law yet.
One of the key arguments being made for enacting the social security law was that too many people had no retirement savings and could not afford to retire. The argument was (and still is) that a system which forces people to put aside money for retirement through taxes is necessary because it is the very nature of young people to be unable to imagine themselves as old.
Don't get me wrong. Private retirement planning is important and should be encouraged. I will submit though that no matter what we do to encourage individual saving for retirement that it will never be adequate.
Young people have many pressing needs. They have the need for an education. They have the need to purchase or rent a home for themselves and their children. They have car and transportation expenses which include automobile insurance (not cheap anywhere). I was a latecomer to parenting (age 32 and age 39), I learned that the expense of buying formula for my children alone was between $3 and $4 a day. More employers are requiring employees to pay more for health insurance--when the employer even has a plan.
Young people who save for retirement in these circumstances are: 1. single; 2. married, but without children; and/or 3. Disciplined to the point where they will deny themselves other necessities of life.
Quote:
It's all about the choices we make in life and how some choices you make early in life diminish the choices you have later in life. Your goal in life should be to maximize your choices in life so you don't have to be a Wal-Mart greeter when you are 70 because you have other options. Unfortunately, maximizing your choices in life, is not taught in school or in the home by your parents.
I think parents of today have caught on. You'd be surprised at the discussions I see going on in my neighbor's homes and even in my own. Its a rough thing to have to teach your children than even rigorous education may not be enough in today's job market. I honestly can see why some people just "give up". The mountains they are expected to climb are no longer just challenging. They are "daunting".
Quote:
For example, when you quit high school, have a baby out of wedlock, do drugs, marry a loser, hang out with a bad crowd you are starting down the road of dwindling choices later in life.
I can't think of one younger person in my upper middle class neighborhood that made this mistake. Yet, virtually all are still going to struggle to land a decent job.
Quote:
And it's not always "bad" choices, sometimes it's just not well-thought-out choices.
That stay-at-home-mom choice sounds noble when you are 27 but what happens when you hit 50, the kids are gone, and the spouse dies or leaves you and you've never worked since that job you had after school when you were 17? What kind of job do you think you'll get at 50? Your choice at 27 to not gain marketable work experience has narrowed your choices at 50.
I agree with you that being a "stay-home-mom" is probably a mistake today. However, many religions still teach women that being a stay-home-mom is their highest calling in life and something they should aspire too. That's a lot of baggage to dump on young women. It should not occur. However, its very real where I live and, sadly, many of them still think this way.
Quote:
Is it time to rethink that furniture moving job (that pays well) when you are approaching 30 or when you are approaching 50?
This sounds fine, but you also have to pose the question in terms of alternatives. What other alternatives does that person have available? We don't all have the aptitude to be engineers, attorneys, or nurses. That's a good thing too. Because if we did, the market would be glutted for those fields and none of them would pay a living wage. I knew guys from high school who were fine people. However, they just never really had much of an aptitude to do advanced mathematics, nor were their writing skills up to very much. They knew it and everyone knew it. Its just that thirty three years ago there were jobs available for people with a limited aptitude.
Quote:
How about that one of a kind career choice you made at 30? Great job. Exciting job. Pays well. Passed up opportunities for other positions when you were younger and doing this job that would have given you a more diverse resume because you liked your job so much. When the company goes belly up when you are 50 and just starting to think about retirement, what do you do with a limited skill set no one needs and isn't applicable to starting your own business?
Its very hard to predict economic trends. When I was younger, I could have found 15 travel agencies in my phone book. Today, because of the computer, travel agencies have virtually disappeared. Anyone can go online and find travel deals without an agent. The same thing is going on right now with insurance. I'll give it fifteen more years, but I bet at the end of that time there will be very few insurance agencies left. Once people learn they can save 20% on car insurance by buying it online, the days of the insurance agent will be numbered.
What skills will be in demand in twenty years? What jobs will be eliminated? A lot of my friend's children are studying to be pharmacists. What happens if health insurance plans start making us buy all of our medication from a central warehouse and if they totally by-pass neighborhood pharmacies? All that training the pharmacists underwent may become totally useless.
Than there is the cost of education. What cost us a fairly small amount of money--even when adjusted for inflation--is literally breaking young people and their parents today. College at a public university is $5,000 or more per semester in many states.
Quote:
It's too late to fix when you are old so yes, there will be a grey underclass but what exactly does "live comfortably in retirement" mean? Does it mean the manner you were accustomed to when you were younger?
It is too late to fix it when you are old. However, it may be "too late" for some people to "fix it" even when they are young. My analogy would be that even if with the best climbing gear available, a good portion of people would never be able to climb Mt. Everest.
As a society, we do the best we can do. It is all the more reason why programs like social security need to be maintained and strengthened. Private alternatives will never work for huge numbers of people.
Last edited by markg91359; 11-27-2011 at 09:06 AM..
I agree that it is important that young people give thought to their own retirement. Now, let me take you back to a time about 75 years ago. Back than, average life expectancies were considerably lower than they are today. Back than social security was being debated in Congress, it hadn't become law yet.
One of the key arguments being made for enacting the social security law was that too many people had no retirement savings and could not afford to retire. The argument was (and still is) that a system which forces people to put aside money for retirement through taxes is necessary because it is the very nature of young people to be unable to imagine themselves as old.
Don't get me wrong. Private retirement planning is important and should be encouraged. I will submit though that no matter what we do to encourage individual saving for retirement that it will never be adequate.
Young people have many pressing needs. They have the need for an education. They have the need to purchase or rent a home for themselves and their children. They have car and transportation expenses which include automobile insurance (not cheap anywhere). I was a latecomer to parenting (age 32 and age 39), I learned that the expense of buying formula for my children alone was between $3 and $4 a day. More employers are requiring employees to pay more for health insurance--when the employer even has a plan.
Young people who save for retirement in these circumstances are: 1. single; 2. married, but without children; and/or 3. Disciplined to the point where they will deny themselves other necessities of life.
I have saved, and I have rarely (And that due to Military, not $)denied myself the necessities of live.
And I've allowed myself more than a few of the luxuries!
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
I think parents of today have caught on. You'd be surprised at the discussions I see going on in my neighbor's homes and even in my own. Its a rough thing to have to teach your children than even rigorous education may not be enough in today's job market. I honestly can see why some people just "give up". The mountains they are expected to climb are no longer just challenging. They are "daunting".
I don't. I've dealt with becoming physically disabled, and I know other Marines who have dealt with much worse!
Buddy of mine was injured from a explosion and no longer does Amtracks, he cooks from his wheelchair. If he did...
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
I can't think of one younger person in my upper middle class neighborhood that made this mistake. Yet, virtually all are still going to struggle to land a decent job.
I agree with you that being a "stay-home-mom" is probably a mistake today. However, many religions still teach women that being a stay-home-mom is their highest calling in life and something they should aspire too. That's a lot of baggage to dump on young women. It should not occur. However, its very real where I live and, sadly, many of them still think this way.
This sounds fine, but you also have to pose the question in terms of alternatives. What other alternatives does that person have available? We don't all have the aptitude to be engineers, attorneys, or nurses. That's a good thing too. Because if we did, the market would be glutted for those fields and none of them would pay a living wage. I knew guys from high school who were fine people. However, they just never really had much of an aptitude to do advanced mathematics, nor were their writing skills up to very much. They knew it and everyone knew it. Its just that thirty three years ago there were jobs available for people with a limited aptitude.
Its very hard to predict economic trends.
Yep. Buggy Whip makers had to deal with it, So did Cobblers, Blacksmiths etc... What makes us special?
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
When I was younger, I could have found 15 travel agencies in my phone book. Today, because of the computer, travel agencies have virtually disappeared. Anyone can go online and find travel deals without an agent. The same thing is going on right now with insurance. I'll give it fifteen more years, but I bet at the end of that time there will be very few insurance agencies left. Once people learn they can save 20% on car insurance by buying it online, the days of the insurance agent will be numbered.
What skills will be in demand in twenty years? What jobs will be eliminated?
See above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
A lot of my friend's children are studying to be pharmacists. What happens if health insurance plans start making us buy all of our medication from a central warehouse and if they totally by-pass neighborhood pharmacies? All that training the pharmacists underwent may become totally useless.
Than there is the cost of education. What cost us a fairly small amount of money--even when adjusted for inflation--is literally breaking young people and their parents today. College at a public university is $5,000 or more per semester in many states.
Funny, I'm 29 and in a couple weeks I'll have finished my Undergraduate and I've already started on my Masters.
It's not breaking me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
It is too late to fix it when you are old. However, it may be "too late" for some people to "fix it" even when they are young. My analogy would be that even if with the best climbing gear available, a good portion of people would never be able to climb Mt. Everest.
As a society, we do the best we can do. It is all the more reason why programs like social security need to be maintained and strengthened. Private alternatives will never work for huge numbers of people.
WHY ON EARTH would you support 'strengthening' a system which was doomed from the first recipient of the pyramid scheme, and that if all the government THEFT was eliminated would leave lots of money with people so they could prepare for THEMSELVES!
People got along fine for the last 1900+ years without it!
Doesn't matter. I bought my first Gov't bond at the age of 10, cashed it in and put it into the ROTH (I transferred to them when they came available) about the age of 20.
My Grandparents also did JUST FINE saving and investing prior to 1986 AND 1975...
I have saved, and I have rarely (And that due to Military, not $)denied myself the necessities of live.
And I've allowed myself more than a few of the luxuries!
I don't. I've dealt with becoming physically disabled, and I know other Marines who have dealt with much worse!
Buddy of mine was injured from a explosion and no longer does Amtracks, he cooks from his wheelchair. If he did...
Yep. Buggy Whip makers had to deal with it, So did Cobblers, Blacksmiths etc... What makes us special?
See above.
Funny, I'm 29 and in a couple weeks I'll have finished my Undergraduate and I've already started on my Masters.
It's not breaking me.
WHY ON EARTH would you support 'strengthening' a system which was doomed from the first recipient of the pyramid scheme, and that if all the government THEFT was eliminated would leave lots of money with people so they could prepare for THEMSELVES!
People got along fine for the last 1900+ years without it!
There are many out there who lost some of their highest earning and saving years due to the state of the economy. Yes, there are some jobs available but not many where you can actually make a living. Low pay, part time, no benefits.....it's grim. And there is age discrimination. Why hire an older person when you can GET a young person easily?
Lots of us were planning on using those years to feather the retirement nest. Lots more income available after the kids are gone, etc. Downsize into a smaller home and invest the proceeds, etc. All that money went up in smoke too. Many people can't move or change homes at all now. All that planning was based on jobs/home equity that for many, have evaporated. Those retirement dreams are going to need to change. Just another unpleasant dose of reality. And then there's also the the explosion in healthcare costs. Not a pretty picture for more than a few of us.
If you were already set and fully retired before 2000 or so, you will probably be fine. You probably already had everything done, including healthcare, before the economy crashed. Count yourself as lucky. Your investments took a dive but they are recovering. You were able to sell your home at a decent profit and things went according to plan.
So what can the rest of us do? It's probably a combination of things. Keep working as long as possible and learn to live on less. It hurts to lower your expectations from a retirement full of great activities to mere subsistence but that's the world we live in now.
2012 will be my first year with no health insurance since 1976. Why? Because I can't continue to absorb costs that are going up more than 300% per year. Life without a safety net. It makes me angry but I can't fix it! I worry but I can't change it. All I can do is HOPE I can stay healthy till I am old enough for Medicare. Or die quickly! I have to become as judgement proof as possible so if something catastrophic happens, I can file bankruptcy and survive.
My life today is a far cry from the one I imagined. No trips, no extras, no vacations. Not much to look forward to but more of the same. Scraping by.
So, what EXACTLY do your seemingly pointless claim and question have to do with ANYTHING I said other than some attempt at (Typical liberal) knee jerk responses and trying to claim I want people 'left in the streets to die'...?
WHY ON EARTH would you support 'strengthening' a system which was doomed from the first recipient of the pyramid scheme, and that if all the government THEFT was eliminated would leave lots of money with people so they could prepare forTHEMSELVES! People got along fine for the last 1900+ years without it!
Now why do we NEED it based on the last 50!?!
1. People preparing for themselves? What a joke! I don't doubt that you would, and many others too, but if you think more than half the people would, you have a much different take on human nature than I do.
2. "People got along fine for the last 1900+ years without it!" Well, sure, when the extended family considered it a normal obligation to take care of the old people. Good luck with that concept today.
1. People preparing for themselves? What a joke! I don't doubt that you would, and many others too, but if you think more than half the people would, you have a much different take on human nature than I do.
2. "People got along fine for the last 1900+ years without it!" Well, sure, when the extended family considered it a normal obligation to take care of the old people. Good luck with that concept today.
Government is NOT the answer! (Look at how much they have screwed up!... and you want to give them MORE!!!)
Go to a cemetery some time and look (Back in the 1800's) how many organizations similar to the Masons existed.
Many of them existed in order to help one another (Voluntary insurance as it were)
OR how much money there would be for charitable giving (Churches etc used to take care of people) if it wasn't being stolen... i mean diverted and wasted by the Gov't.
I have saved, and I have rarely (And that due to Military, not $)denied myself the necessities of live.
And I've allowed myself more than a few of the luxuries!
Good for you. My question is why do you think we should set government policy based on what happened to you or any one individual? Everyone's experience is different in life. Tell me if I am right or wrong about this. Are you unmarried and without children? Do you have basically no needs to worry about other than your own? That's not the case with a lot of people. Many of us are raising families. Perhaps, you can't comprehend the struggle that people with dependents have to save money. Its not a case of doing without satellite t.v. Its a situation where they can choose medical care, food, and shelter or they can give up one of these and put money in savings for retirement instead.
Quote:
I don't. I've dealt with becoming physically disabled, and I know other Marines who have dealt with much worse!
Buddy of mine was injured from a explosion and no longer does Amtracks, he cooks from his wheelchair. If he did...
I want to make sure I have your story right. Are you receiving a disability pension from the military? If so, why do you feel its alright for government to provide that, but suddenly it becomes wrong for government to establish a social security system for all those in their sixties to retire?
Quote:
Yep. Buggy Whip makers had to deal with it, So did Cobblers, Blacksmiths etc... What makes us special?
Nothing, but it illustrates why some people are unable to plan and save. You sink time and education into an occupation that the world suddenly has no use for. It can set back bright and capable people.
Quote:
Funny, I'm 29 and in a couple weeks I'll have finished my Undergraduate and I've already started on my Masters.
It's not breaking me.
How is your tuition being paid? Scholarships? Military benefits (provided again by the taxpayer)? Did you work and save all the money? Did your family provide any assistance? If tuition is $10,000 a year, an individual would have to earn a minimum of about $20,000 a year to afford to go to school. That would involve the barest living arrangements possible. This of course assumes no financial aid from the school and no student loans (both of which ultra-conservatives seem hellbent on abolishing).
Quote:
WHY ON EARTH would you support 'strengthening' a system which was doomed from the first recipient of the pyramid scheme, and that if all the government THEFT was eliminated would leave lots of money with people so they could prepare for THEMSELVES!
If you believe all that you live in Fairy Castle Land. First, social security can be strengthened by raising the retirement age and by a few additional taxes. As it is right now, there is enough money in the system to pay 100% of all benefits due for the next 25 years. Does that sound like a "doomed pyramid scheme" to you? It sounds like a functioning system that needs a few modifications to me.
You took your obligation to serve your country seriously enough to enlist in the military. It puzzles me that you look upon taxation as "theft". I regard taxes as another obligation of citizens. That obligation also includes informing one's self about elections and taking the time to vote. It may include serving on a jury if called to do so. Those are my obligations and your obligations as a citizen.
The problem with libertarian types like you is that you generally either whitewash history or you choose to ignore it. Social Security was not some kind of communist plot. Social Security came about because of real problems occurring in this country in the 1930's. Those problems included people who had no money to retire on because they as youths, they didn't realize that one day they would live to be old and need a retirement. Another problem was the fact that many unemployed workers needed a job, but couldn't get one until someone older retired. Yet, elderly people holding jobs (who wanted to leave) couldn't retire because there was no retirement system in place.
Quote:
People got along fine for the last 1900+ years without it!
Now why do we NEED it based on the last 50!?!
What on earth would lead you to believe that people got along "fine" without social security or its equivalent? Show me your evidence, your statistics, your documentation. People didn't get along "fine" without it. The reason we ended up with it is because it was a huge unmet need that existed in our society.
I saw the citation to your science fiction novel in another reply. If you want to talk intelligently about this subject, I can recommend a dozen authoritative books that deal with real history. If you read those you might actually learn something.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
